Pharmacy Group Lies To Registrars: If We Complain About A Site, It Must Be Taken Down No Questions Asked

from the that's-not-how-it-works dept

This is incredible. Just yesterday we wrote about how EasyDNS won its arbitration case, saying that a registrar cannot takedown and block the transfer of a domain name just on the say so of law enforcement or anyone else not carrying a court order. And, the very next day, EasyDNS is reporting on an absurd letter it has received from the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, which argues exactly the opposite of what the arbitration panel told EasyDNS.

Incredibly, it says that if it complains about a domain, the registrar must take it down:

"Upon receipt of an abuse notification, some Registrars claim that a court order is required or that they are not violating the laws of the Registrar’s country. Both assertions are wrong."

Except, as EasyDNS points out, the arbitration ruling says that it's the NABP that's wrong, and that a court order is required. Similarly, the NABP claims that registrars must freeze the domains, even without a court order.

You should not allow domain names engaged in the illegal sale or distribution to transfer to another Registrar: the question of legality does not relate to where the Registrar is located, but rather to the activity of the Web site.

But, again, the arbitration ruling, which merely read from ICANN's own rules, says the exact opposite -- noting that you clearly need a court order

The NABP also tries the same direct misreading of ICANN's rules that Public Domain Registry used, to pretend that "fraud" is a reason to deny transfer, but as the arbitration ruling found, that claim is simply incorrect. The "fraud" referenced in the rules is only fraud concerning transfers not fraud in terms of what the website was used for.

There's much more in the letter as well. There is some history here. The NABP is basically an organization designed to artificially inflate the price of drugs in the US, cynically using highly questionable claims to pretend that they're focused on "public safety." For years, the NABP has worked hard to keep legitimate but cheaper versions of drugs outside the US, so that US pharmacies (and the drug companies they work with) can charge increasingly insane prices for drugs. Because they can use the specter of "fake drugs killing people!" they're able to do all sorts of nasty attacks on foreign pharmacies that are selling perfectly legitimate drugs to willing buyers, by claiming that they put people's lives at risk.

And, now, it appears they're going even further in trying to basically create a "SOPA-like" setup, whereby registrars are required to pull down any domain based solely on NABP's say so without any judicial review at all. The fact that this is happening at the same time that City of London Police are doing the same exact thing (at the urging of the legacy music/movie industries) isn't an accident. While the supporters of SOPA insist that there's no new legislation coming, they're all trying to do an end run around all of it, creating something that's even more extreme than SOPA by getting registrars to simply kill sites they don't like based on nothing but a complaint.

EasyDNS's Mark Jeftovic says it all in his blog post about it, noting that this is why they fought back against COICA/SOPA/PIPA:

It really is getting creepy out there.

We now know that we live in a total surveillance society, governments are printing money, going broke, manufacturing consent and lying about nearly everything; while quasi-governmental agencies all over the world are now asserting they have the authority to overturn legal process and basically dictate everybody else's business.

Who will be the next batch of clowns who tell us they can use liberally interpreted language in a couple of agreements that they aren't even party to to compel us to takedown your website? Let's start a betting pool.

This is why pushing back and standing up for internet freedom is so important. The attempts to control, to censor, to block and to silence are only increasing. The legacy players who can't stand competition or innovation are looking for any way to hold back the future, and that means attacking the public's ability to make use of the internet and to speak freely.

Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"

This is the fundamental conflation that pirates cling to: that preventing "file sharing" is tyranny. It's NOT. No one has EVER been tyrannized by NOT being able to get mindless entertainments for free. Further, other people put work and money into creating those, therefore they totally own the product.

So long as you keep claiming that your ability to steal someone else's content is freedom, YOU are the ones destroying freedom.

Now, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy is simply another bunch of corporatists trying to impose de facto tyranny. Of course it's wrong. And I wish to hell that Techdirt would uniformly oppose corporatism, not excuse Facebook and Google's spying on all of us. Nor should Techdirt support a new bunch of sleazy little grifters like Spotify while railing at the old bunch of grifters; the similarity there is griftage, being on "teh internets" doesn't make it right.

DON'T STEAL CONTENT: MAKES YOU A THIEF.

DON"T LET CORPORATIONS RUN WILD: YOU'LL BE A SERF.

CONFLATING "FILE SHARING" WITH FREEDOM IS STUPID AND WRONG, and it's EXACTLY what the corporations wish you to do.Mike frequently runs items on "copyright abuse" intended to STIFLE expression knowing full well that his fanboys then consider all copyright bad and use those bad acts to justify their own STEALING of content. As Mike never runs items condemning STEALING, it's difficult to see how he "supports copyright". -- Mike sets up a false alternative: in fact, BOTH STIFLING AND STEALING ARE BAD.

Re: Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"

This is the fundamental conflation that pirates cling to: that preventing "file sharing" is tyranny. It's NOT

Ignoring your bizarre and incorrect "pirate" slur, you are the one who's wrong.

A "file sharing site" is not automatically a "piracy site". File sharing sites are used all the time for legitimate, noninfringing purposes. Preventing it is as tyrannical as telling people they can't send each other packages, for example.

Re: Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"

"Nor should Techdirt support a new bunch of sleazy little grifters like Spotify..."

I've spent more money buying music in the last six months than in the previous six years. Why? Spotify and Pandora, so called "grifters". Why do you hate people spending money on music? Why do you hate artists!

Re: Re: Goes WRONG at: "First They Came For The File Sharing Domains"

Cathy, who pretends to hate corporations and the very rich, considers that the only legitimate music outlets are the record companies, not the artists themselves, despite the number of times it's been pointed out that the record companies often rip off artists.

DIY on creative commons and try to make a living from live performances and other genuine scarcities? You filthy grifting pirate!!11eleventyone!11!! /s

Same for those internet services that provide a radio-like experience or provide access to music that they then pay the artists for. It's a my-way-or-the-highway scenario based on confused ideology, no information and zero common sense.

Re:

The future is that sites that traffic in illegal goods are going to be seized, blocked, shut down, etc.

Yeah, that is the past, so most people would reasonably expect that to hold true in the future as well.

The thing is, in the past it also required a court order born of sufficient evidence to seize them, not the unverified say so of random lobbying groups or local police departments of countries that aren't yours. So most people quite reasonably expect that minor requirement to hold true in the future as well.

The NABP is part of the minority that thinks that bothersome "court order" requirement should go away in the future because heaven forbid that they should have to convince a judge of the merits of their request instead of simply bossing another company around.

Re:

You make the assumption that the law is always right and just because something is illegal it should be.

It should not be illegal for people to get their medicine cheaper from other countries. The law needs to change and the government needs to stop protecting the interests of corporations that want to scam the public and instead it should stop these corporations from scamming us and protecting the public interest.

http://www.legitscript.com/research

The top sites are selected based on their longevity (they must keep customers happy!) and "world-wide" customer reach (the internet!). If you are looking for good, cheap drugs, I would try one of these top sites:

1) 101generic.com by RxCash.biz2) topills.com by MyRxCash.com3) xlpharmacy.com by XLPharmacy4) canadianhealthcaremall.net by evapharmacy.ru5) trustedmedsonline.org by Rx-Partners6) v-medical.com by MyRxCash.com7) bmpharmacy.com by Sey Pharma8) half-price-pharmacy.com by Cash.md9) rx-acs24.com by Pharmcash10) SuperSaverMeds.com by BestLifeRx11) pharmacyrxone.com by MyRxAffiliateProgram12) shopeastwest.com by ShopEastWest13) 4rx.com by 4Rx

Out_of_the_Blue - Do you work for PDR?

I normally don't comment on what other Readers post, but OOTB really misses the boat.

The reference to the File Sharing Sites has nothing to do with what they are sharing, or by your definition, what they are stealing. The reference is that even those that STEAL, again using your definition, those people have RIGHTS and DUE PROCESS and the minute you start taking one groups rights away from them, you start taking those same rights away from everyone, et al, the slippery slope.

Mike has never suggested that stealing is a valid way to do anything, what he is saying though is that you cannot just remove someone's right to Due Process simply because you believe they are doing something wrong. That right there is the definition of Tyranny!

I agree with the head of EasyDNS, it's getting creepy out there, and the people are the one's letting these bullies get away with what they do. Perhaps it's true that others don't give a damn and don't care, but that's exactly how the slippery slope begins, and by the time that Snow Ball is heading towards something you do care about, it's already picked up enough momentum that it will squash you like a bug on a summer's night windshield. I'd rather stop that Snow Ball here and now, before it gets too large to deal with. That is what the quote that was being referenced means. Don't believe me? Go look it up and see for yourself. Unless you are like the others, who won't give a damn until it's them that are being wiped out by the big bad Snow Ball bearing down on their heads!

can we get the pharma company shut down, please? i am complaining about it's prices, so it must be closed immediately, no questions asked!we can all thank the good ol' USA government and it's unconditional backing of the lying arse holes of the entertainment industries for what we are now seeing. had the big internet companies made a stand against their demands, put up some sort of fight rather than just cow towing to every demand, we wouldn't be in the shit street we are now!

Re:

Top "rogue" sites based on customer satisfaction

(To avoid block, I post this without links.) The letter from NABP mentions legitscript [d*t] com. That site keeps a list of the top "rogue" pharmacy sites here: legitscript [d*t] com/research

The top sites are selected based on their longevity (they must keep customers happy!) and "world-wide" customer reach (the internet!). If you are looking for good, cheap drugs, I would try one of the listed top sites:[list removed]

Re: Top "rogue" sites based on customer satisfaction

Even better, to quote legitscript: "Websites designated by LegitScript as legitimate are those that have been through the LegitScript certification process and are confirmed to meet LegitScript standards"

What a business method !! Pay us to certify you or be marked as Rogue.

It may full well be that US professional medical societies do have the lawful right to demand that sites not provide medical and pharmaceutical information via the internet without their explicit approval under the theory that the site is practicing medicine without a license and/or having the correct patient doctor relation.

Re:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I took an oath to defend this document and what it stands for. These people relieve themselves on it on a daily basis. It is just a pipe dream to them, not a living document. They believe they are the chosen ones, and above the law. All gave some, some gave all. We will not let their sacrifices be in vain.

What "NABP" really stands for...

The NABP appears to be believe that EasyDNS (registrars in general?) should change its business model to include policing efforts (the monitoring for and pursuing of "enforcement against rogue Internet pharmacy Web sites using [EasyDNS's] platform in violation of applicable laws […]" at 4). The suggestion of the NABP that EasyDNS should include policing efforts in its operations is tantamount to the ludicrous and willfully myopic suggestion that EasyDNS should make its resources available to the NABP at no charge. And this suggestion unmasks the NABP for what it really is: the Nincompoop Asking Businesses for Presents.

"Just yesterday we wrote about how EasyDNS won its arbitration case, saying that a registrar cannot takedown and block the transfer of a domain name just on the say so of law enforcement or anyone else not carrying a court order."

The problem is that there is little punishment against those that make bogus takedown requests.